New  York  City  Water  Front 


LETTER  FROM 


TO  THE 

Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 


GIVING  SOME  ACCOUNT  OF  HOW  NEW  YORK  ACQUIRED  HER  WATER  FRONT,  TWO  HUNDRED  YEARS 
AGO,  AND  UNDER  WHAT  LAWS.  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS,  WHARVES,  STREETS,  BULKHEADS 
AND  PIERS  WERE  BUILT.  AND  OTHER  IMPROVEMENTS  HAVE  BEEN  MADE,  AND  HOW 
TRADE  AND  COMMERCE  ARE  NOW  CRIPPLED  IN  DIVERS  WAYS  FOR  WANT  OF 
ADDITIONAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  FACILITIES  WHICH  THE  DEPARTMENT 
OF  DOCKS  IS  AUTHORIZED  AND  DESIRES  TO  MAKE,  AND  FOR 
WHICH  IT  HAS  ASKED  FOR  THE  ISSUE  OF  BONDS  AS  PRO- 
VIDED FOR  BY  LAW,  AND  IS  SO  MUCH  NEEDED. 


From  the  "City  Record,"  September  22,  1886. 


NEW  YORK : 
Martin  B.  Brown,  Printer  and  Stationer, 
49  AND  51  Park  Place. 

J  8  8  6. 


i 


Ex  ICihrtB 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


"l '  Tort  nieutt/  ^rn^erdam-  oj^  JAatJiatarus 


FORT    NEW  AM-STERDAAi. 


(mew  York)  ,  1651. 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  hook 

Because  it  has  heen  said 
"Sver'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  hook." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


New  York  City  Water  Front. 


LETTER  FROM 

TO  THE 

Commissioners  of  tlie  Sinking  Fund, 

GIVING  SOME  ACCOUNT  OF  HOW  NEW  YORK  ACQUIRED  HER  WATER  FRONT,  TWO  HUNDRED  YEARS 
AGO,  AND  UNDER  WHAT  LAWS,  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS.  WHARVES,  STREETS,  BULKHEADS 
AND  PIERS  WERE  BUILT,  AND  OTHER  IMPROVEMENTS  HAVE  BEEN  MADE,  AND  HOW 
TRADE  AND  COMMERCE  ARE  NOW  CRIPPLED  IN  DIVERS  WAYS  FOR  WANT  OF 
ADDITIONAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  FACILITIES  WHICH  THE  DEPARTMENT 
OF  DOCKS  IS  AUTHORIZED  AND  DESIRES  TO  MAKE,  AND  FOR 
WHICH  IT  HAS  ASKED  FOR  THE  ISSUE  OF  BONDS  AS  PRO- 
VIDED FOR  BY  LAW,  AND  JS  SO  MUCH  NEEDED. 


From  the  "City  Record,"  September  22,  1886. 


NEW  YORK : 
Martin  B.  Erown,  Printer  and  Stationer, 
49  and  51  Park  Place. 

I  8  S  6.  ■ 


■A. 


FROM 

THE  CITY  RECORD 

(Official  Journal) 

OF 

SEPTEMBEI\  22,  1886. 

.  

Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 

COMMISSIONERS  OF  THE  SINKING  FUND, 

AT  THE  MEETING  HELD  SEPTEMBER  17TH,  1886. 


Present — William  R.  Grace,  Mayor  ;  Frederick  Smyth,  Recorder ;  Edward  V.  Loew,  Comp- 
troller ;  and  William  M.  Ivins,  Chamberlain. 

*  It  *  if  *  it  A  *  *  *  it.  * 

The  Comptroller  submitted  the  following  communication  from  Simon  Stevens,  Esq.,  in  relation 
to  the  manner  New  York  acquired  its  water-tront,  two  hundred  years  ago  ;  and  under  what  laws, 
rules  and  regulations,  wharves,  streets,  bulkheads  and  piers  were  built  and  other  improvements 
made,  etc.,  which,  on  motion  of  the  Recorder,  was  received  and  ordered  printed  in  the  minutes  : 

Some  account  of  how  New  York  acquired  her  water-front,  two  hundred  years  ago, 
and  under  what  laws,  rules  and  regulations,  wffarves,  streets,  bulkheads ' and 
piers  were  built,  and  other  improvements  have  been  made,  and  how  trade  and 
commerce  are  now  crippled  in  divers  ways  for  want  of  additional  improvements 
and  facilities  which  the  department  of  docks  is  authorized  and  desires  to  make, 
and  for  which  it  has  asked  for  the  issue  of  bonds  as  provided  for  by  law,  and  is 
so  much  needed. 

Offices  of  Simon  Stevens,  ] 
No.  61  Broadway,  New  York,  \ 
August  30th,  1886.  ) 

To  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  : 

Gentlemen — In  the  year  1686,  the  Crown  of  England,  by  the  Dongan  Charter,  granted  to  the 
City  of  New  York,  then  a  municipal  corporation,  vast  political,  legislative,  executive  and  judicial 
powers. 


4 


The  legislative  power  was  conferred  upon  the  Common  Council,  which  was  authorized  "to 
'*  frame,  constitute,  ordain  and  establish,  from  time  to  time,  all  such  laws,  statutes,  ordinances  and 
**  constitutions,  which  to  them  or  a  greater  part  of  (hem  shall  seem  to  be  good,  useful  or  necessary 
♦*  for  the  good  government  of  the  body  corporate." 

The  Dongan  Charter,  among  other  things,  granted  to  the  City  of  New  York  all  the  land 
between  high  and  low  water  mark  around  the  Island  of  Manhattan,  with  jurisdiction  over  the  same, 
with  power  to  take  in,  fill  and  make  up  and  lay  out  all  and  singular  the  land  and  grounds  in  and 
about  the  said  city  and  Island  Manhattan,  and  the  same  to  build  upon  or  make  use  of  m  any  other 
manner  or  way  as  to  them  shall  seem  fit,  as  far  into  the  rivers  thereof,  and  that  encompass  the  same, 
as  low-water  mark  aforesaid. 

By  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  in  1730,  the  Crown  further  granted  a  strip  of  land,  four  hundred 
feet  in  width,  lying  immediately  outside  of  low-water  mark,  extending  from  Corlear's  Hook  (now 
Jackson  street),  on  the  East  river,  around  the  southern  extremity  of  the  island,  to  Bestayer's  rivulet 
(excepting,  however,  the  space  in  front  of  the  Battery),  with  full  power  and  authority  at  any  time 
thereafter  to  fill,  make  up,  wharf  and  lay  out  all  and  every  part  thereof,  and  to  take  the  wharfage 
and  cranage  and  dockage  arising  or  accruing  therefrom  ;  but  it  was  provided  in  said  charter  that 
nothing  therein  contained  should  empower  or  entitle  the  City  to  wharf  out  before  any  persons  who 
had  prior  wharf  grants  beyond  low-water  mark,  without  the  actual  agreement  or  consent  of  such 
persons,  and  that  of  the  wharves  to  be  built  or  run  out  by  the  City,  there  should  be  left,  towards  the 
East  and  North  rivers,  a  street  forty  feet  broad,  for  the  convenience  of  trade  and  the  planting  of 
batteries  in  case  of  necessity. 

The  grants  made  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York  to 
private  persons,  of  "the  land  between  high  and  low  water  mark,  which  it  had  acquired  by  the 
Dongan  Charter,  were  generally  uniform  in  their  character  and  are  fairly  represented  by  the  grant 
to  William  Boyle,  dated  November  19th,  1686. 

Grants  of  land  under  water  to  be  filled  up  and  made  dry  land,  acquired  by  the  Montgomerie 
charter,  and  given  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York  to  private 
parties  who  had  pre-emptory  rights  to  upland  and  land  between  high  and  low  water  marks  are 
fairly  represented  by  the  grants  to  Anthony  Rutgers,  May  12th,  1732,  and  October  nth,  1734. 

These  grants  generally  embraced  in  their  length  the  whole  width  of  the  four  hundred  feet 
strip  of  "  land  under  water  "  acquired  by  the  City. 

Upon,  or  at,  the  outer  end  of  the  four  hundred  feet  "strip  of  land  under  water"  thus  granted 
on  the  east  and  west  side  of  the  city  a  street  forty  feet  wide  was  to  be  built  by  the  grantees,  and  to 
be  known  on  the  east  side  as  "  South  street,"  and  on  the  west  side  as  "West  street." 

It  was  construed  that  this  forty-feet  street  was  to  be  built  on  land  under  water,  out  beyond  the 
four  hundred  feet  specified  in  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  and  was  subsequently  so  recognized  by  an 
ordinance  of  the  Common  Council  passed  February  loth,  1796. 

Under  the  Dongan  and  Montgomerie  Charters  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York 
acquired  all  the  title  to  the  land  granted  which  the  Crown  of  England  could  convey,  and  it  also 
acquired  all  the  rights  to  fill  up  such  lands  and  build  wharves  thereon,  and  receive  the  wharfage 
and  other  advantages  therefrom  which  the  sovereign  authority  could  give  it,  and  at  an  early  day 
made  many  grants  to  divers  private  persons,  of  these  same  lands  under  water,  with  the  right  to  said 
private  parties  to  make  wharves  and  take  the  wharfage,  dockage,  cranage,  emoluments,  etc.,  accru- 
ing therefrom  ;  such  grants  extended  out  into  the  East  and  North  rivers  to  unequal  distances  within 
the  ownership  of  the  City  by  reason  of  the  sinuosity  of  the  shore  lines. 

At  the  close  of  the  "War  of  the  Revolution  "  the  State  of  New  York  succeeded  to  the  owner- 
ship of  the  unceded  Crown  lands  under  water  in  navigable  streams  within  its  boundary  and  assumed 
to  legislate  in  relation  to  them. 

The  City's  grantees  took  their  grants  in  good  faith,  and  did  fill  up  said  land  under  water  and 
make  it  dry  land,  and  did  build  the  streets  or  wharves,  and  for  so  doing  they  or  their  successors  in 
title  have  received,  and  are  now  receiving,  the  wharfage  and  other  emoluments  therefrom,  and  have 
.done  so  for  the  last  seventy-five  to  one  hundred  years. 


5 


In  1793  the  Common  Council  passed  a  resolution  that  the  outer  street  along  the  East  and  North 
rivers  should  be. seventy  feet  in  width  instead  of  forty  feet,  and  in  April,  1795,  Passed  an  ordinance, 
establishing  South  and  West  streets  as  the  outer,  extreme  and  permanent  streets  on  the  rivers. 

In  the  same  year  it  was  held  that  the  Common  Council  could  not  compel  the  proprietors  to 
build  South  street  seventy  feet  wide,  because  the  additional  thirty  feet  beyond  the  forty  feet  named 
in  their  respective  grants  would  be  upon  land  under  water  belonging  to  the  State  of  New  York, 
to  which  the  City  then  had  no  title. 

On  the  loth,  of  February,  1796,  an  ordinance  was  passed  by  the  Common  Council,  somewhat, 
but  not  materially,  altering  the  permanent  line  of  South  and  West  streets  and  extending  the  respect- 
ive lots  then  theretofore  granted,  out  to  the  new  street  of  seventy  feet  in  width. 

On  the  1 2th,  of  February,  1798,  the  Common  Council  presented  a  petition  to  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  asking  that  power  be  conferred  upon  the  Common  Council  to  cause  South 
street  to  be  made  seventy  feet  wide,  for  the  reason  stated  in  the  petition,  and  to  give  it  the  right  to 
extend  piers,  at  right  angles  to  the  permanent  streets,  into  the  river,  at  proper  distances  from  each 
other,  with  suitable  bridges,  etc.,  etc. 

In  response  to  this  petition,  the  Legislature,  on  the  3d,  day  of  April,  1798,  passed  **An  act 
concerning  certain  streets,  wharves,  piers,  etc.,  in  the  City  of  New  York.  "    See  Session  Laws,  1798. 

That  act  reciting  in  its  several  whereases,  substantially,  the  body  of  the  petition  of  the  Common 
Council,  provided  that  the  City  might  lawfully  lay  out,  according  to  such  plans  as  it  shall  or  may 
agree  upon  or  determine,  such  streets  or  wharves  as  in  the  petition  mentioned,  in  front  of  those 
parts  of  the  city  which  adjoin  to  the  said  rivers,  and  of  such  extent  along  these  rivers,  respectively, 
as  it  may  think  proper,  and  authorized  the  City  to  lengthen  and  extend  the  streets  and  wharves, 
according  to  said  plan,  by  and  at  the  expense  of  the  proprietors  of  land  adjoining  or  nearest 
and  opposite  to  the  said  street  or  wharves  in  proportion  to  the  breadth  of  their  several  lots,  and 
provided  penalties  for  those  who  omitted  or  refused  to  fill  up  and  level,  at  their  own  expense, 
according  to  such  plan  and  within  the  time  prescribed. 

The  same  act  provided  that  the  City  could  direct  piers  to  be  sunk  and  completed  at  such  dis- 
tances and  in  such  manner  as  it  might,  in  its  discretion,  think  proper,  in  front  of  the  said  streets  or 
wharves,  at  the  expense  of  the  proprietors  of  the  lots  lying  opposite  to  the  places  where  such  piers 
shall  be  directed  to  be  sunk. 

And  provided,  further,  that  every  clause,  covenant  and  condition  in  the  several  grants  of  the 
City  to  the  said  proprietors,  respectively,  or  to  those  under  whom  they  claim  to  be  kept, 
observed  or  performed  by  the  grantees,  respectively,  and  their  heirs,  etc.,  notwithstanding  this  act, 
were  to  and  did  retain  their  full  force  and  validity  and  were  in  no  manner  to  be  affected  by  the  said 
act,  or  anything  to  be  done  or  performed  in  consequence  thereof  ;  and  as  to  the  City's  rights,  pow- 
ers and  privileges  and  as  grantees  they  were  not  to  be  broken  or  to  infringe  any  of  the  covenants  or 
conditions  on  their  part. 

It  was  enacted,  that  no  building  of  any  kind  or  description  whatsoever  (other  than  the  said 
piers  and  bridges)  shall,  at  any  time  hereafter,  be  erected  upon  the  said  streets  or  wharves,  or 
between  them  respectively,  and  the  rivers  which  they  respectively  front  and  adjoin. 

See  Session  Laws,  1798. 

**  An  Act  concerning  certain  Streets,  Wharves  and  Piers  and  the  Almshouses  and  Bridewell,  in 

"the  City  of  New  York. 

Passed  April  3d,  1798. 

**  Whereas,  It  would  conduce  to  the  improvement  and  health  of  the  said  city,  as  well  as  to 
*'the  safety  of  such  ships  or  vessels  as  may  be  employed  in  the  trade  and  commerce  thereof,  that 
"  regular  streets  or  wharfs,  of  the  width  of  seventy  feet,  should  be  laid  out  and  completed  m  front 
**  of  those  parts  of  the  said  city,  which  adjoin  to  the  East  river  or  Sound,  and  to  the  North  or  Hud- 
*'  son's  river,  and  that  piers  should  be  extended  from  the  said  streets  into  the  said  rivers  respect- 
**  ively,  at  convenient  distances  from  each  other,  with  suitable  bridges,  for  the  accommodation  of 
**  sea  vessels,  and  upon  such  a  construction  as  to  admit  of  current  of  the  said  rivers  at  both  ebb  and 
*'  flood,  to  wash  away  all  dirt  and  impurities. 


6 


"And  Whereas,  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty,  by  petition  to  the  Legislature, 
"under  their  common  seal,  have  represented  that  they  are  disposed  to  make  the  said  improvements, 
"  but  that  from  the  curving  and  irregularities  of  the  shores  of  the  said  rivers  in  their  original  state, 
"  from  the  grants  made  by  their  predecessors,  being  deemed  to  extend  to  unequal  distances,  into 
*'  the  said  rivers,  and  from  other  causes  difficulties  have  arisen  as  to  the  execution  of  a  proper  plan, 
"and  doubts  have  been  entertained  whether  they  could  compel  the  proprietors  of  lots  fronting  on 
"  the  said  rivers,  to  make  those  streets  within  a  reasonable  period  or  to  sink  and  build  those  piers, 
"and  whether  the  said  petitioners  could  without  a  breach  of  the  conditions  and  covenants  contained 
"  in  their  grants  to  individuals,  upon  the  refusal  or  neglect  of  such  proprietors,  sink,  build,  and 
"  make  those  piers,  streets  and  wharves  at  their  own  expense,  and  receive  wharfage  as  a  compen- 
"sation  for  the  same,  which  doubts  and  difficulties  can  only  be  removed  by  the  aid  of  the  Legis- 
"  lature. 

"And  Whereas,  defects  have  been  discovered  in  the  provisions  for  assessing  and  raising  money 
"  in  the  said  city  under  an  act  entitled  'An  act  for  regulating  the  buildings,  streets,  wharves  and 
"  slips  in  the  City  of  New  York  '  ;  therefore, 

"  Sec.  I.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of  New  York,  represented  in  Senate  and 
"  Assembly,  That  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the 
"  City  of  New  York  to  lay  out,  according  to  such  plans  as  they  shall  or  may  agree  upon  or  deter- 
"  mine,  such  streets  or  wharves  as  hereinbefore  are  mentioned,  in  front  ot  those  parts  of  the  said 
"  city  which  adjoin  to  the  said  rivers,  and  of  such  extent  along  those  rivers,  respectively,  as  they 
"  may  think  proper,  and  that  as  the  buildings  of  the  said  city  shall  be  further  extended  along  the 
"  said  rivers,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty,  from 
"  time  to  time,  to  lengthen  and  extend  the  said  streets  and  wharves. 

"  Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  said  streets  or  wharves  shall  be  made  and  com- 
"  pleted,  according  to  the  said  plan,  by  and  at  the  expense  of  the  proprietors  of  land  adjoining,  or 
"  nearest  and  opposite  to  the  said  streets  or  wharves,  in  proportion  to  the  breadth  of  their  several 
"  lots,  by  certain  days,  to  be  for  that  purpose  appointed  by  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
"  monalty,  and  that  the  respective  proprietors  of  such  of  the  said  lots  as  may  not  be  adjoining  to 
"  the  said  streets  or  wharves  shall  also  fill  up  and  level,  at  their  own  expense,  according  to  such 
"  plan,  and  by  the  said  days  respectively,  the  spaces  lying  between  their  said  several  lots  and  the  said 
"  streets  and  wharves,  and  shall  upon  so  filling  up  and  leveling  the  same,  be  respectively  entitled 
"  to  and  become  the  owner  of  the  said  intermediate  spaces  ot  ground  in  fee  simple. 

"  Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  if  any  of  the  said  proprietors  shall  neglect  or  refuse 
"  to  fill  up  and  level  such  intermediate  spaces  of  ground  by  the  said  days  to  be  so  as  aforesaid 
"  appointed,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  to  cause 
"  the  same  to  be  done  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  said  proprietors,  and  to  charge  them  with  the 
"  expense,  and  if  the  said  proprietors,  respectively,  shall  not  repay  the  said  expense,  with  lawful 
"  interest  from  the  times  of  the  expenditure,  within  one  year  and  six  months  after  demand  for  that 
"  purpose  made  by  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty,  or  any  person  on  their  behalf,  it 
"  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  to  levy  the  same,  to- 
"  gether  with  the  interest  thereof,  and  all  reasonable  costs  and  expenses  attending  such  proceedings, 
"  by  distress  and  sale  of  the  goods  and  chattels  of  such  proprietors,  or  the  occupants  of  the  said  lots, 
"  respectively,  or  to  recover  the  same  from  the  said  proprietors,  respectively,  by  action  of  debt  in 
"  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State,  wherein  it  shall  be  sufficient  to  allege  generally  that  the  defend- 
"  ants  respectively  are  indebted  to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  in  a  certain  sum  for 
"  money  expended  on  their  account,  by  virtue  of  this  act,  and  in  such  action  any  less  sum  than  the 
"  one  declared  for  may  be  recovered,  and  full  costs  shall  be  taxed  for  the  plaintiffs,  if  judgment 
"  shall  be  given  in  their  favor. 

"  Sec.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  said  sums  to  be  expended  as  aforesaid  on  behalf 
"  of  the  said  proprietors  respectively,  and  all  and  every  sum  and  sums  of  money  which  may  have 
"  been,  or  shall  at  any  time  or  times  hereafter  be  assessed  among  the  owners  or  occupants  of  any 
"  houses  and  lots  by  virtue  of  the  said  act,  entitled  '  An  act  for  regulating  the  buildings,  streets, 
"  wharves  and  slips  in  the  City  of  New  York,'  shall  be  a  real  encumbrance  and  charge  upon  the 
"  houses  and  lots  in  respect  to  which  such  assessments  shall  have  been  made,  and  shall  bear  lawful 
"  interest  until  paid,  and  shall  be  entitled  to  a  preference  above  all  other  incumbrances  upon  the 
"  same  ;  and  that  the  same  sums  and  interest  money  may  be  sued  for  and  recovered,  with  costs,  in 
"  like  manner  as  if  the  said  houses  and  lots  were  mortgaged  to  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and 
"  Commonalty  for  the  payment  thereof ;  provided  always,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall 
"  extend  to  charge  any  such  houses  or  lots  which  may  have  been  bona  fide  sold  and  disposed  of 
"  after  the  making  of  such  assessment  thereon,  and  before  the  passing  of  this  act. 

"  Sec.  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  it  shall  and  maybe  lawful  for  the  said  Mayor,  Alder- 
"  men  and  Commonalty  to  direct  piers  to  be  sunk  and  completed,  at  such  distances,  and  in  such 
"  manner,  as  they  in  their  discretion  shall  think  proper,  in  front  of  the  said  streets  or  wharves  to  be 
"  so  made  as  aforesaid,  and  to  be  connected  with  the  same  by  bridges,  at  the  expense  of  the  pro- 
"  prietors  of  the  lots  lying  opposite  to  the  places  which  such  piers  shall  be  directed  to  be  sunk,  and 


7 


**  by  such  days  and  times  as  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  may  for  that  purpose 
"  limit  and  appoint  ;  and  if  the  said  proprietors  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  sink  or  make  the  said 
"  piers  and  bridges,  according  to  the  directions  of  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty,  it 
"  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  to  sink  and  make  the 
*'  same  piers  and  bridges  at  their  own  expense,  and  to  receive  to  their  own  use,  wharfage  for  all 
*'  vessels  that  may  at  any  time  or  times  lie  at,  or  be  fastened  to  the  said  piers  or  bridges,  which  they 
**  shall  so  make  as  aforesaid. 

"Sec.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  every  clause,  covenant  and  condition  in  the  several 
'*  grants  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  said  city,  to  the  said  proprietors  respect- 
"  ively,  or  those  under  whom  they  claim  to  be  kept,  observed  or  performed  by  the  grantees 
"  respectively,  and  their  respective  heirs,  executors,  administrators  and  assigns,  shall,  notwithstand- 
"  ing  thfs  act,  retain  their  full  force  and  validity  and  shall  be  in  no  manner  affecred  by  the  same, 
"  or  by  anything  to  be  done  or  performed  in  consequence  thereof,  and  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen 
"  and  Commonalty  shall  have,  possess  and  be  entitled  unto  the  like  payments,  rights  and  remedies, 
"  by  virtue  of  the  said  grants,  as  they  might  or  could  have  had,  or  would  have  been  entitled  to,  if 
"  this  act  had  never  been  passed,  and  shall  not,  by  the  performance  of  anything  herem  contained, 
"  be  deemed  to  have  broken,  or  infringed  any  of  the  covenants  or  conditions  on  their  parts,  con- 
"  tained  in  the  said  grants. 

"  Sec.  7.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  no  building  of  any  kind  or  description  whatsoever 
"  (other  than  the  said  piers  and  bridges)  shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be  erected  upon  the  said 
*'  streets  or  wharves  or  between  them  respectively,  and  the  rivers  to  which  they  respectively  shall 
*'  front  and  adjoin." 

Note. — Sections  8,  9  and  10  following,  which  comprise  the  rest  of  this  act,  relate  exclusively  to  the  Almshouse 
and  Bridewell. 

By  the  act  of  the  Legislature  passed  April  3d,  1798,  as  well  as  under  acts  passed  prior  thereto, 
general  authority  was  conferred  upon  the  City  to  lay  out  and  construct  wharves,  and  the  general 
system  seems  to  have  been  for  the  City  to  convey  the  lands  under  water  to  individuals,  requiring 
them  to  fill  up  the  land  and  construct  streets  or  wharves,  with  the  right  to  receive  the  wharfage  and 
other  emoluments  and  advantages  arising  therefrom,  which  system  has  repeatedly  been  recognized 
by  the  legislature. 

South  and  West  streets  were  finally  laid  out  under  the  ordinances  passed  by  the  Common 
Council  in  pursuance  of  the  law  of  1798.  South  street  extended  northward  on  the  East  river  to 
Corlear's  Hook, 

On  the  2d,  day  of  June,  1800,  James  Remsen  and  others  petitioned  the  Common  Council  for 
one  or  more  piers  to  be  run  out  into  the  rivers  between  Whitehall  Slip  and  Broad  street. 

This  petition  was  referred  to  the  Street  Commissioner  and  Mr.  Alderman  Coles  as  a  committee, 
who  on  January  12th,  1801,  reported  that,  after  reflection  they  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  erection, 
of  piers  between  Whitehall  Slip  and  Fly  Market  (now  Maiden  Lane)  was  of  the  highest  importance, 
more  especially  since  the  Corporation  has  caused  the  permanent  line  within  that  space  to  be  com- 
pleted and  thus  deprived  shipping  of  the  use  of  old  piers,  and  they  recommended  the  passing  of  an 
ordinance  directing  the  proprietors  of  lots  on  South  street  within  the  boundary  above  mentioned 
to  commence  the  building  of  fifteen  piers  according  to  the  plan  to  be  thereafter  mentioned,  and  in 
case  of  their  neglect  or  refusal  to  do  so  the  delinquents  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  benefits  of  their 
grants. 

On  the  23d,  of  February,  1801,  the  whole  subject  was  again  under  consideration  by  the  Com- 
mon Council,  and  was  referred  to  a  special  committee,  consisting  of  the  Aldermen  of  the  Second, 
Third,  Fourth  and  Fifth  Wards. 

By  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  passed  April  3d,  1801,  authority  was  given  to  the  Common 
Council  to  grant  to  the  owners  of  lots  fronting  on  South  and  West  streets,  upon  certain  terms  and 
conditions,  "  a  community  of  interests  in  the  piers  to  be  sunk  in  front  of  such  streets,  within  such 
limits  as  the  Corporation  should  deem  just." 

On  May  i8th,  1801,  the  question  of  erection  of  piers  being  again  under  consideration  by  the 
Common  Council,  the  question  was  referred  to  the  Recorder  to  examine  the  law  in  regard  to  grants 
of    land  under  water,  acquired  by  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  etc.,  etc." 

The  Recorder  subsequently  reported  to  the  Common  Council  that  neither  the  act  of  1798  nor 
any  other  act  vested  in  the  Corporation  any  title  to  land  under  water,  outside  of  the  four  hundred 


8 


feet  granted  by  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  nor  had  the  City  any  right  to  impose  any  quit  rent  on 
such  land. 

On  February  28th,  1803,  the  Comptroller  submitted  to  the  Common  Council  a  statement  in 
relation  to  the  water-grants  theretofore  made,  also  some  recommendations  which  were  adopted. 

In  1803,  sundry  citizens,  owners  of  water  lots  on  East  river,  petitioned  for  authority  to  build 
piers  under  the  act  of  1798,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  Common  Council.  Their  petition  was 
granted,  and  piers  were  built  accordingly,  and  the  wharfage  and  other  emoluments  thereof  are 
enjoyed  by  their  successors  in  title  to  this  day  without  dispute. 

By  chapter  126  of  the  Laws  of  1806,  the  Legislature  authorized  the  City  to  construct  additional 
slips  and  basms  and  to  take  to  itself  the  wharfage  therefrom. 

The  first  section  of  that  act  contains  the  following  proviso  :  Provided  always,  that 'nothing 
herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  deprive  any  person  who  may  have  made  piers  by  the  direction 
of  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  entitled,  *An  act  for  regu- 
lating the  building  of  streets,  wharves  and  slips  in  the  City  of  New  York,'  of  any  legal  right  which 
they  may  have  thereby  acquired,  or  to  interfere  with  any  private  property  or  right  or  privilege  held 
under  grants  of  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty,  or  otherwise  "  ;  and  in  the  third  section 
it  was  provided  "in  case  any  of  the  persons  who,  according  to  the  said  above-mentioned  act,  shall 
have  been  directed  to  sink  or  complete  piers  and  bridges  in  the  said  city,  have  neglected  or  shall 
neglect  to  comply  with  such  directions,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty to  grant  the  right  of  making  such  piers  and  bridges,  and  the  right  of  receiving  the  profits 
thereof  to  any  person  or  persons  in  fee  or  otherwise,  upon  such  terms  as  they  shall  think 
proper." 

On  the  3d,  of  April,  1807,  an  act  was  passed  by  the  Legislature  relating  to  the  map  or  plan  of 
the  city,  wherein  the  XV  section  provided  for  duly  regulating  and  constructing  slips  and  basins, 
and  for  running  out  wharves  and  piers,  and  declaring  that  it  was  essential  that  the  right  to  the  land 
under  water,  below  low-water  mark,  should  be  vested  in  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York ; 
but  it  was  **  provided  always  "  therein  also  "  that  the  proprietors  of  the  lands  adjacent  shall  have 
pre-emptive  right  in  all  grants  made  by  the  Corporation  of  the  said  City  of  any  lands  under  water 
granted  to  the  said  Corporation  under  this  act." 

In  December,  1807,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office,  by  letters  patent  duly  issued  by 
them,  granted  to  the  City  of  New  York  all  the  right  and  title  of  the  people  of  the  State-  to  the  lands 
covered  by  water  along  the  East  and  North  rivers,  as  designated  and  described  in  and  authorized 
by  the  act  last  referred  to. 

Under  the  two  charters  and  the  course  of  the  legislation  referred  to,  the  City  acquired  the  title 
to  the  land  granted  which  the  Crown  of  England  or  the  State  could  convey,  and  it  also  acquired  all 
the  rights  to  fill  up  such  lands,  and  build  wharves  thereon  and  receive  the  wharfage  and  other 
advantages  therefor,  which  the  sovereign  authority  could  give  it. 

Taking  the  language  of  the  charters  and  grants,  the  course  of  legislation,  and  all  the  statutes 
in  pari  materia,  the  situation  of  the  lands  granted,  and  the  use  to  which  many  portions  of  them 
had,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Legislature,  been  from  time  to  time  devoted,  it  is  clear 
that  the  lands  under  water  around  the  city  were  conveyed  to  it  in  fee  to  enable  it  to  fill  them  up  as 
the  interest  of  the  City  might  require,  and  to  regulate  and  control  the  wharf  and  wharfage. 

Whatever  title  and  property  rights  the  City  thus  obtained  it  could  transfer  and  convey  to 
individuals.  Having  the  power  to  extend  the  ripa  around  the  city,  and  thus  make  dry  land,  it 
could  authorize  any  individual  to  do  it.  Whatever  wharves  and  docks  it  could  build  it  could  author- 
ize individuals  to  build,  and  whatever  wharfage  it  could  tal<e  it  could  authorize  individuals  to  take. 
Its  dominion  over  the  lands  under  water,  for  the  purpose  indicated  in  the  preamble  contained  in 
section  15,  above  cited,  was  complete. 

It  has  always  been  admitted  that  the  grants  made  by  the  City  to  private  individuals  vested  in 
them  severally  the  absolute  fee  of  the  land  granted  ;  and  that  they  could  fill  up  the  land  under 
water,  and  thus  become  the  owners  of  the  dry  land  ;  and  it  has  also  been  admitted  that  said 
grantees  or  their  successors  in  title  did  fill  up  the  said  land  under  water  so  as  to  make  it  dry  land 


9 


and  built  the  streets,  wharves  and  piers,  as  provided  or  covenanted  for  in  said  grants  or  prescribed 
by  city  ordinances,  and  have,  at  their  own  proper  cost  as  required,  "forever  thereafter  upheld, 
maintained,  sustained  and  kept  them  in  good  and  sufficient  manner  and  condition  "  ;  and  that 
South  and  West  streets  have  always  been  for  the  free  and  common  use  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  City 
of  New  York.  The  grantees  or  their  successors  in  title,  having  observed,  performed,  fulfilled  and  kept 
according  to  the  true  meaning  and  purport,  the  covenants  reserved  in  said  grants,  the  said  several 
acts  of  the  Legislature  and  the  ordmances  of  the  Common  Council  in  relation  thereto  from  time  to 
time,  loecarne  entitled  to  and  did  take  and  do  now  hold,  to  their  own  proper  use,  all  and  all 
manner  of  wharfage,  dockage,  cranage,  average  profits,  benefits  and  advantages  arising  therefrom, 
forever. ' ' 

The  administration  of  the  City's  affairs,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  water-front,  about  the  year 
seventeen  hundred  and  ninety-eight,  assumed  an  even  tenor,  and  the  same  was  substantially  fol- 
lowed up  to  the  time  when  the  Legislature  passed  the  act  known  as  chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of 
1 87 1,  to  which  you  are  referred  for  specific  details. 

In  summarizing  that  act,  however,  I  may  say  that  the  Department  of  Docks  was  organized  in 
1870,  and  by  subdivision  2  of  section  6  of  chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of  187 1,  to  it  was  given  exclu- 
sive charge  and  control,  subject,  in  certain  particulars,  to  the  approval  of  the  "Commissioners  of 
the  Sinking  Fund,"  of  all  wharf  property  belonging  to  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
including  all  the  wharves,  piers,  bulkheads  and  structures  thereon,  and  waters  adjacent  thereto,  and 
all  the  slips,  basins,  docks,  water-front  and  land  under  water  and  structures  thereon,  and  the  appurte- 
nances, easements,  uses,  reversions  and  rights  belonging  thereto,  to  which  said  Corporation  is  or 
may  become  entitled,  or  which  said  Corporation  may  acquire  under  the  provisions  of  this  law  or 
otherwise,  and  said  Department  was  placed  in  exclusive  charge  and  control  of  the  repairing,  build- 
ing, rebuilding,  maintaining,  altering,  strengthening,  leasing  and  protecting  said  property,  and 
every  part  thereof,  and  of  all  the  cleaning,  dredging  and  deepening  necessary  in  and  about  the 
same,  and  the  said  Department  was  also  invested  with  the  exclusive  government  and  regulation  of 
all  wharves,  piers,  bulkheads  and  structures  thereon,  and  waters  adjacent  thereon,  and  all  the  basins, 
slips  and  docks  with  the  land  under  water  in  said  city,  not  owned  by  said  Corporation. 

By  subdivision  4  of  said  section  6  of  chapter  574  of  Laws  of  1871,  the  Department  of  Docks 
was  authorized  to  acquire,  in  the  name  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  any  and  all  wharf  property  in  said  city  to  which  the  Corporation  then  had  no  right  or  title, 
and  any  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges  pertaining  to  any  wharf  property  in  said  city  and 
not  owned  by  said  Corporation.  It  is  authorized  to  acquire  the  same  either  by  purchase  or  by  pro- 
cess of  law.  Said  Board  may  agree  with  the  owners  of  any  such  property,  rights,  terms,  easements 
and  privilages,  upon  a  price  for  the  same,  and  certify  such  agreement  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund,  and  if  said  Commissioners  approve  of  such  agreement  said  Board  shall  take  from 
such  owners,  at  such  price,  the  necessary  conveyances  and  covenants  for  vesting  such  property, 
rights,  terms,  easements  or  privileges  in,  and  assuring  the  same  to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty of  the  City  of  New  York  forever,  and  said  owners  shall  be  paid  from  the  City  Treasury  as 
hereinafter  provided.  If  the  said  Board  shall  deem  it  proper  that  the  said  Corporation  should 
acquire  possession  of  any  such  wharf  property,  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges,  for  which  no 
price  can  be  agreed  upon  between  the  owners  thereof  and  the  said  Board,  the  said  Board  may 
direct  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  of  said  city  to  take  legal  proceedings  to  acquire  the  same  for 
the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  said  city,  and  the  said  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  shall 
take  the  same  proceedings  to  acquire  the  same  as  are  by  law  provided  for  the  taking  of  private 
property  in  said  city  for  public  streets  or  places,  and  the  provisions  of  law  relating  to  the  taking  of 
private  property  for  public  streets  or  places  in  said  city  are  hereby  made  applicable,  as  far  as  may 
be  necessary,  to  the  acquiring  of  the  said  property,  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges,  and 
said  Board  is  also  empowered  to  acquire  in  like  manner  the  title  to  lands  under  water  and  uplands 
as  shall  seem  to  said  Board  necessary  to  be  taken  for  the  improvement  of  the  water-front. 

Subdivision  5  of  section  6  of  the  same  law  prOjVides  that  when  the  plans  mentioned  in  sub- 
division 3  of  the  same  section  shall  have  been  adopted  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 


lO 


the  Board  of  the  Department  of  Docks  shall  proceed,  according  to  said  plans,  to  lay  out,  establish 
and  construct  wharves,  piers,  bulkheads,  docks  or  slips,  in  the  territory  or  district  embraced  in  such 
plan  or  plans,  and  in  and  upon  or  about  the  property  owned  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty of  the  City  of  New  York,  "without  interfering  with  the  property  or  rights  of  any  other 
*'  person,  except  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  insure  the  safety  and  stability  of  the  wharves,  piers, 
*'  bulkheads,  basins  or  slips  so  to  be  constructed,  and  said  Board  may  commence  such  construction, 
"in  sections  of  said  territory  or  district,  from  time  to  time,  so  as  not  to  seriously  incommode  the 
**  commerce  of  the  City." 

Subdivision  lo  of  section  6  of  the  same  law  authorizes  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office  to 
convey  by  proper  instruments  in  writing  necessary  for  the  purpose,  all  the  property,  right,  title  and 
interest  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  and  to  the  land  under  water  "  used  and  taken  " 
by  the  said  Board  for  the  construction  of  wharves,  docks,  piers,  bulkheads,  basins  and  slips,  under 
this  act,  whenever  it  may  be  required  by  said  Board  to  make  such  conveyance  to  the  Mayor, 
Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

By  the  same  act  the  Department  of  Docks  was  authorized  to  expend  a  sum  not  exceeding 
$3,000,000  per  annum,  in  accomplishing  the  purposes  contemplated  by  the  Legislature. 

Pursuant  to  these  provisions  of  law,  elaborate  surveys  were  made  and  plans  prepared  after 
much  study  and  at  a  great  expense,  and  were  approved  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund» 
The  works  of  improvement  were  commenced,  but  have  progressed  slowly  for  the  reason  that  private 
rights  and  property  were  neither  acknowledged  nor  respected.  The  plans  adopted  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Docks  contemplated,  in  brief,  the  widening  of  West  and  South  streets  on  the  outer  side,  by 
piling  or  filling  out  into  the  rivers,  so  that  their  total  width  should  be  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet  on 
West  street,  and  two  hundred  feet  on  South  street,  and  the  building  of  substantial  bulkheads  of 
granite  masonry  as  recommended  by  Committee  No.  5  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  adopted, 
unanimously  by  the  Chamber  on  the  28th,  day  of  September,  1870,  and  the  building  of  new  piers 
generally  of  greater  width  and  length  than  those  now  existing.  It  will,  of  course,  be  seen  that  ta 
carry  out  this  plan  practically  involves  the  demolition  of  all  the  old  existing  piers  and  bulkheads 
within  the  limits,  whether  public  or  private. 

The. piers  and  bulkheads  along  the  water-front  of  the  City  of  New  York,  although  they  are,.- 
with  few  exceptions,  like  the  streets  of  the  city,  public  structures  in  their  nature  and  in  their  uses,  yet 
they  have  one  characteristic  ot  private  property,  which  constitutes  their  whole  value  as  such — that 
is,  that  the  "  wharfage  "  arising  from  them  belongs  to  their  respective  owners. 

These  private  rights  all  arose  under  one  system  and  in  substantially  the  same  manner. 

I  have  shown  that  shortly  before  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  about  the  year  1798,  a 
system  of  piers  and  bulkheads  came  into  existence,  resulting  from  the  concurrent  action  of  the  City 
Government  and  the  Legislature,  and,  that,  that  system  prevailed  up  to  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
plans  of  1 87 1.  It  contemplated  the  establishment  of  seventy-foot  exterior  streets  (the  present  West 
and  South  streets),  and  the  extension  of  piers  thereffom.  The  title  to  the  water  lots  extending  to 
these  streets  was  generally  in  the  City,  and  sometimes  also  the  land  beyond  them  on  which  the 
piers  were  built.  The  act  of  the  Legislature  gave  permission  for  the  establishment  of  the  street 
where  it  should  rest  on  public  ungranted  land  under  water  belonging  the  State,  and  provided  for 
the  building  of  the  piers  by  private  owners  of  water  lots  extending  from  the  exterior  streets,  with 
the  permission  ot  the  City  Government,  and  for  the  retention  of  wharfage  by  the  grantees  as  a 
recompense  for  doing  so.  The  City,  by  its  grants  of  these  water  lots,  required  that  the  grantees- 
should  build  the  exterior  streets,  and  should  have  the  wharfage  and  cranage  forever  that  should 
arise  from  them,  or  from  the  bulkheads  built  along  their  outer  edge,  and  enforced  or  permitted  the 
building  of  said  bulkheads  and  piers  by  resolution  of  the  Common  Council. 

Under  this  system  nearly  all  the  water-front,  including  the  exterior  streets,  bulkheads  and 
piers,  was  built  up.  In  some  cases,  however,  the  City  authorities  did  not  make  private  grants  of 
the  right,  but  built  the  structures  themselves  with  public  money,  and  so  retained  the  whole  wharf- 
age, or  else  joined  with  private  owners,  and  retained,  a  part,  so  that  many  of  the  piers  and  bulkheads, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  became  and  still  are  City  property. 


II 

But  all  the  private  wharfage  rights  along  the  water-front  were  the  result  of  water  grants,"  to 
aid  the  building  of  the  exterior  streets  or  wharves  and  piers  by  private  owners,  by  the  authority 
of  the  Legislature,  and  of  the  City  Government,  under  the  provisions  of  their  acts.  It 
cannot  be  doubted,  that  these  rights  were  the  "property  "  which  the  law  makers  had  in  view,  and 
for  the  acquisition  of  which,  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  they  made  provision  by  the  act  of 
1871. 

Within  a  short  time  after  the  adoption  of  the  new  plans,  under  the  laws  of  1871,  the  Depart- 
ment of  Docks  commenced  to  put  them  into  execution  on  West  street,  between  Canal  and  Eleventh 
streets,  by  destroying  the  old  wharves  and  piers,  widening  the  street  one  hundred  and  eighty  feet, 
and  building  and  filling  up  the  old  slips.  In  this  work  no  recognition  was  made  in  any  instance  of 
the  rights  of  private  owners  whose  wharves  and  piers  were  demolished  or  made  useless.  On  the 
contrary,  the  position  was  taken  by  the  Department,  under  advise  of  the  then  Counsel  to  the 
Corporation,  that  its  powers,  under  the  law,  were  so  extended  ihat  all  private  rights  thus  inter- 
fered with  were  not  "perpetual  "  in  their  nature,  but  were  subject  to  be  terminated  at  the  City's 
will  and  pleasure.  It  was  insisted  that  the  grantees'  private  rights  were  not  meant  to  be  perma- 
nent when  they  were  created  ;  that  neither  the  City  nor  the  State  had  power  to  grant  permanent 
rights,  and  that,  therefore,  these  grants  contained  necessarily  an  implied  reservation  of  power  by 
the  City  to  terminate  the  rights  under  them  at  any  time,  by  filling  up  in  front  of  them  whenever  it 
should  be  the  judgment  (whim  or  caprice,  whatever  it  may  be  called)  of  the  authorities,  that  it  was 
necessary  or  advisable  to  do  so,  notwithstanding  the  provision  in  subdivision  5  of  section  6  of  the 
act  of  187 1  that  "  private  rights  or  property  should  not  be  interfered  with." 

In  support  of  this  contention,  it  was  urged  that  the  "grants  "  did  not  contain  the  word  "  for- 
ever "  or  any  equivalent  expression,  but  generally  were  for  the  wharfage  arising  from  the  structure 
to  be  erected,  and  that  thereby  it  was  the  intention  of  the  grantor  to  leave  the  rights  of  the  private 
owners  to  the  mercy  of  the  City  authorities  whenever  it  chose  to  demolish  these  structures. 

It  may  readily  be  supposed  that  when  the  City  authorities  began  to  put  these  ideas  into  practi- 
cal execution  on  West  street,  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets,  the  property-owners  did  not 
delay  in  taking  measures  for  the  protection  of  their  rights.  Some  few  permitted  this  invasion  of 
their  rights  and  brought  suits  or  made  claims  against  the  City  for  the  resulting  damage.  In  the 
majority  of  cases,  however,  a  preventive  remedy  was  availed  of,  so  that  after  a  time,  it  became  the 
regular  course  for  the  Department  of  Docks  to  commence  to  fill  the  slip  or  drive  piles  in  front  of  it, 
and  for  the  wharf  owner  to  obtain  a  preliminary  injunction  from  the  Court  against  its  action.  After 
a  while,  the  Department,  seeing  that  its  operations  were  constantly  restrained,  ceased  to  prosecute 
the  work  of  improvement  in  that  manner.  Of  the  various  suits  that  have  been  brought  several  have 
come  before  the  courts.  One,  involving  the  rights  in  the  water-front  on  the  North  river,  between 
Twenty-sixth  and  Twenty-seventh  streets,  has  been  argued  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  and 
decided  adversely  to  the  City.  The  same  result  has  been  reached  in  the  same  court  in  a  suit 
involving  a  slightly  different  state  of  facts  on  the  East  river,  between  Forty-ninth  and  Fifty-first 
streets.  The  only  one  of  all  the  suits  brought  that  has  ever  reached  the  court  of  last  resort  in  this 
State,  is  that  of  Langdon  against  The  Mayor,  etc.,  decided  early  in  October,  1883.  This  litigation 
involved  the  rights  of  the  successors  to  the  title  of  John  Jacob  Astor,  under  grant  to  him  in  1810,  of 
a  water  lot  at  the  northeast  corner  of  West  and  King  streets.  This  suit,  after  a  decision  favorable 
to  the  City  by  the  single  judge  who  first  heard  it,  and  a  reversal  of  that  decision  on  appeal  to  the 
General  Term,  was  carried  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  by  the  City,  and  the  judgment  of  the  General 
Term  was  affirmed  by  a  unanimous  Court  and  the  position  of  the  private  owners  was  fully  sus- 
tained. 

Several  points  were  settled  by  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  this  case,  written  by  Mr.  Justice  Earl. 

1.  That  grants  of  wharfage  to  accrue  from  wharves  built  by  private  parties,  made  under  the 
water-front  system  in  question,  whether  made  by  the  Legislature  or  by  the  City,  are  perpetual 
in  their  duration  and  not  revokable  by  the  action  of  the  public  authorities. 

2.  The  private  rights  created  by  these  acts  are  in  their  nature  "  property,"  and  are  protected 
by  the  Constitution. 


I  2 

3.  Not  only,  therefore,  was  it  not  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  that  these  rights  should  be 
overridden  by  the  powers  conferred  by  the  acts  of  1870  and  1871,  but  they  are  constitutionally 
protected  from  such  a  result ;  and,  moreover,  it  was  the  design  of  the  Legislature  that  compensa- 
tion should  be  made  for  them  when  they  were  interfered  with. 

In  the  case  in  question  the  only  thing  involved  was  a  "bulkhead  grant"  along  West  street. 
The  decision  is,  of  course,  an  authority  so  far  as  the  facts  go.  There  was  no  pier  right  in  question, 
so  that  if  there  were  any  substantial  differences  between  the  character  of  the  grants  under  which 
piers  were  built,  the  question  as  to  the  piers  would  not  have  been  decided. 

But  all  these  grants,  both  of  piers  and  bulkheads,  are  essentially  similar,  and  the  only  difference 
being  that  the  grants  of  bulkheads  are  evidenced  by  a  sealed  instrument,  and  those  of  piers  by  act  of 
the  legislature  and  a  resolution  of  the  Common  Council.  And  the  application  of  the  decision  is 
equally  forcible  whether  the  land  under  water  in  front  of  the  bulkheads  belongs  to  the  State  or  the 
City.  The  Court  expressly  says  in  the  Langdon  case  that  grants  of  this  character,  if  made  by  the 
State,  are  as  permanent  and  as  bindmg  as  if  made  by  the  City.  And  all  the  piers  that  were  author- 
ized or  that  the  City  had  granted  were  authorized  or  directed  to  be  built  under  its  direction  as  the 
agent  of  the  State.  Hence,  the  error  of  supposing  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  to 
give  the  character  of  permanency  and  a  status  of  "  property  "  to  the  private  rights  in  some  of  the 
wharf  structures,  and  denying  it  to  others  erected  under  the  same  system,  is  manifest  at  once.  It  is 
property  which  the  grantee  could  lease  and  sell  to  individuals,  and  the  custom  has  always  been  to 
lease  or  sell,  and  their  rights  to  do  so  is  provided  for  or  recognized  in  various  acts  of  the  Legis- 
lature. 

Mr.  Justice  Earl  says,  in  his  opinion,  that  "a  wharf  is  a  structure  on  the  margin  of  navigable 
* '  waters,  alongside  of  which  vessels  can  be  brought  for  the  sake  of  being  conveniently  loaded  or 
**  unloaded,  and  wharfage  is  the  fee  paid  for  tying  vessels  to  a  wharf,  or  for  loading  goods  cn  a 
*'  wharf  or  shipping  them  therefrom.  Hence,  water  of  sufficient  depth  to  float  vessels  is  an  essential 
*' part  of  every  wharf,  a  necessary  incident  thereof  or  appurtenance  thereto,  without  which  there 
*'  can  be  no  wharf  and  no  wharfage.  Indeed,  a  wharf  cannot  be  defined  or  conceived  except  in 
*' connection  with  adjacent  navigable  water.  Hence,  it  is  claimed  that  by  the  legal  effect  of  the 
**  grants,  the  land  under  water,  outside  of  the  wharf.  South  and  West  streets,  became  subservient 
*'  to  the  right  of  wharfage  granted  ;  that  the  land  under  water  was,  by  force  of  the  grant,  devoted 
*'  to  the  purpose  of  floating  vessels  which  might  resort  to  the  wharf,  and  could  not  lawfully  put  the 
*'  land  under  water  in  front  of  the  wharf  to  any  use  which  would  prevent  access  to  the  wharf,  or 
*'  destroy  the  right  of  wharfage,  without  making  compensation  for  the  injury  thus  inflicted. 

"The  legal  proposition  that  the  grant  of  the  right  of  wharfage  at  a  wharf,  adjoining  land 
*'  under  water  belonging  to  the  grantor,  carries  with  it  as  a  necessary  incident  and  appurtenance, 
**  and  in  legal  effect  as  part  of  the  grant  a  right  of  way  or  access  to  the  wharf  for  vessels  over  the 
**  grantor's  adjacent  land  under  water,  has  the  support  of  legal  principles,  which,  it  is  believed. 
*'  have  never  been  disputed.  In  3  Kent's  Comm.,  421,  it  is  laid  down  as  a  general  rule  *  that  when 
the  use  of  a  thing  is  granted,  everything  is  granted  by  which  the  grantee  may  have  and  enjoy 
"such  use.'    In  the  Charles  River  Bridge  case.  Judge  Story,  at  page  592,  said  that  *  It  is  a 
**  principle  of  common  sense,  as  well  as  of  law,  that  where  a  thing  is  granted,  whatever  is  neces- 
**  sary  to  its  enjoyment  is  granted  also.'    In  Co.  Litt.,  56a,  it  is  said  :  'He  who  grants  a  thing, 
*'  grants  impliedly  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of  that  thing,  and  this  principle  extends 
to  grants  made  by  the  law.'    In  2  Wash,  on  Real  Prop.  (3d  ed.),  278,  it  is  said:  *An  ease- 
ment  may  be  created  or  reserved  by  an  implied  grant  when  its  existence  is  necessary  to  the 
"  enjoyment  of  that  which  is  expressly  granted  or  reserved,  upon  the  principle  that  when  one 
*'  grants  anything  to  another,  he  thereby  grants  him  the  means  of  enjoying  it,  whether  expressed  or 
*'  not.' 

'*  An  easement  for  acccess  to  the  wharf  over  the  adjacent  land  of  the  City  under  water,  passed 
**  by  necessary  implication.  Without  the  easement  the  wharf  would  be  of  no  use,  there  could  be 
"  no  wharfage,  and  the  grant  as  to  the  wharf  and  wharfage  would  be  futile.  The  grant  was  made 
*'  for  an  adequate  valuable  consideration.     It  was  not  made  solely  or  primarily  for  the  benefit  of 


13 


**  the  grantee,  but  primarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  City  in  pursuance  of  a  policy  for  improving  its 
*' harbor  and  furnishing  its  treasury.  Under  such  circumstances  there  is  no  rule  of  construction 
which  can  confine  the  grant  to  the  metes  and  bounds  mentioned  in  the  deed.  If  the  City  had 
owned  this  wharf  and  granted  it,  the  right  to  wharfage  and  an  easement  for  access  to  the  wharf 
**  over  the  adjacent  land  of  the  City  under  water  would  have  passed  by  necessary  implication  as 
"  incidents  and  appurtenances  of  the  thing  granted." 

Acting  under  the  decision  in  the  Langdon  case  the  Department  of  Docks  has  only  purchased 
from  private  owners  about  four  hundred  and  fifty  feet  of  bulkhead  or  wharf  rights  on  North  river 
below  Canal  street  and  one  hundred  feet  above  Canal  street.  The  private  owners  who  have 
obtained  injunctions  are  well  satisfied  with  the  condition  of  affairs  and  do  not  care  to  take  any 
affirmative  steps.  It  would  take  years  to  bring  any  other  existing  litigation  involving  these 
questions  to  a  final  hearing  either  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  or  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  except  by  an  agreed  case,  which  seems  improbable. 

The  Department  of  Docks  has,  since  its  organization  in  1870  to  May  ist,  1886,  sixteen  years, 
had  a  total  gross  revenue  of  $12,780,584.63  from  leases  and  wharfages,  and  has  in  that  time  made 
a  total  expenditure  of  $12,176,361.16,  including  payments  of  $203,530  purchase  money  for  the 
Inman  Pier,  now  renting  for  $30,000  per  annum  ;  purchasing  bulkheads  between  Harrison  and 
Hubert  streets,  $2^60,562.50  ;  bulkheads  above  Canal  street,  $52,387.50,  and  bulkheads  near  Mur- 
ray street  of  $14,250  ;  and  now  has  on  hand  a  floating  plant  valued  at  $176,900. 

The  revenue  collected  by  the  Department  of  Docks  does  not  include  the  ferry  rentals  received 
by  the  Comptroller  for  several  years  past.  But  the  Dock  Department  should  be  credited  with  the 
revenue  derived  from  ferries  as  being  derived  from  that  part  of  the  water-front  which  it  has  improved 
and  cared  for. 

In  the  year  ending  May  1st,  1886,  the  Department  of  Docks  collected,  from  leases 

and  wharfages   $1,228,151  50 

During  the  same  period  the  Comptroller  collected  for  ferry  rentals,  for  wharves  and 

franchises   328,000  00 

Total  revenue  collected  from  wharf  property   Si»556,i5i  50 

The  Dock  Department  has  expended  in  the  same  tune  only   376,789  72 

Net  revenue  over  expenditures  ior  the  year  ending  May  i,  1886,  of. .    $1,179,361  7S 


The  engineering  plans  and  the  system  of  work  of  the  Department  were  thoroughly  examined 
and  approved  by  a  board  of  distinguished  engineers  in  1876,  and  again  in  1881.     The  Board  con- 
sisted of  General  John  Newton,  late  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A.,  now  Commissioner  of  Public 
Works  of  the  City  of  New  York  ;  General  Q.  A.  Gillmore,  U.  S.  Engineers,  President  of  the  Missis 
sippi  River  Commission,  and  Mr.  William  E.  Worthen,  C.  E.,  of  New  York. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  permanent  improvements  of  the  New  York  water-front  that  have 
been  made  by  the  Department  of  Docks,  have  not  been  made  with  that  economy  that  would  have 
resulted  had  the  private  owners  been  first  settled  with  by  the  City,  amicably  or  by  condemnation 
proceedings,  as  provided  for  by  chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of  1871. 

And  yet  it  is  claimed  substantially  by  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  that  the  City,  by  the 
Department  of  Docks,  has  the  right  to  build  bulkheads,  on  land  under  water  in  East  river,  directly 
in  front  of  bulkheads  that  have  been  built  by  private  owners,  under  grants  from  the  City  of  New 
York,  with  right  to  collect  wharfage  "  forever,"  and  to  cut  off  the  private  owners  from  their  rights  and 
privileges  of  wharfage,  without  compensation,  notwithstanding  the  grantees  and  their  successors  in 
title  have  built  and  maintained  the  bulkheads  and  piers,  and  collected  wharfage  from  them  for  over 
seventy-five  years.  The  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  has  admitted,  however,  that  as  long  as  the 
bulkheads  and  piers  belonging  to  private  owners  remain  as  they  do  to-day,  the  private  owners' 
right  to  enjoy  the  wharfage  and  other  emoluments  cannot  be  interfered  with. 


14 


After  an  extensive  research  with  considerable  care,  I  made  an  approximate  estimate  from 
reliable  data  of  the  probable  cost  of  improving  the  water-front,  between  the  Battery  and  West 
Eleventh  street,  and  from  Whitehall  street  to  the  Brooklyn  Bridge,  including  the  purchase  of  private 
property,  and  the  private  property  which  has  been  seized  and  improved  by  the  City  of  New  York, 
but  not  paid  for  : 

NORTH  RIVER. 

From  the  Battery,  Pier  i,  to  West  Eleventh  street,  length  of  the  bulkhead-line  is..       10,800  feet. 

Of  which  approximately  there  is — • 

City  property,  say   4,600  feet. 

Private  property,  say   6,200  '* 

  10,800  " 


The  ascertained  average  cost  of  widening  West  street,  180  feet  so  as  to  make  it  250 
feet  wide  when  finished,  building  bulkheads  with  granite  masonry,  filling  in 


behind  and  paving  10,800  feet,  is  less  than  $350  per  lineal  foot,  but  say   $3,780,000  00 

To  reimburse  private  owners  for  6,200  feet  of  bulkhead,  valued  at  $650  per  lineal  foot 

front,  say   4,030,000  00 

For  4,600  feet  of  City's  property,  between  the  Battery  and  West  Eleventh  street,  at 

same  value,  $650  per  lineal  foot  front,  say   3,390,000  00 

To  pay  private  owners  for  twenty-five  piers  at  $150,000  each,  exclusive  of  bulk- 
heads, say   3,750,00000 

To  build  forty-seven  piers,  at  an  average  cost  of  $55,000  each,  say   2,585,000  00 


Total  estimated  value  of  property  and  cost  of  widening  and  improving 

West  street,  from  the  Battery  to  West  Eleventh  street  $17,535,000  00 


IMPROVEMENTS  ALREADY  MADE. 

The  Dock  Department  has  already  completed  the  proposed  improvements  between 
Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets,  according  to  the  approved  plans,  a  distance  of 


3,318  feet,  wich  granite  masonry  bulkheads  and  filling  in  behind  and  paving 
180  feet  of  the  street,  at  an  average  of  something  less  than  $350  per  lineal  foot 

front,  or  say  for   $1,161,300  00 

Value  of  2,100  feet  of  private  bulkhead  property  between  streets  or  piers,  at  the  rate 
of  $650  per  lineal  foot,  which  the  City  seized  by  the  advice  of  the  then  Corpo- 
ration Counsel,  without  compensation  to  the  owners,  say   1,365,000  00 

Value  of  City's  1,218  feet  of  bulkhead  property  interlying  with  private  property,  at 

the  same  valuation  of  $650  per  foot,  say   791,700  00 

*l'he  City  has  built  fifteen  extensive  long  and  wide   piers,  at  an  average  cost  of 

say  $55,000  each,  or  a  total,  say,  of   825,000  00 


Total  present  value  or  cost  of  3,318  feet  of  wharf  property,  including 

improvements  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets   $4,143,000  00 


This  improved  district  brings  to  the  City  a  revenue  of  about  §400,000  per  annum,  equal  to  10 
per  cent,  on  the  above  valuation  of  the  entire  district  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets,  for 
which  the  City  has  or  will  have  to  issue,  say,  4  per  cent,  bonds,  thus  making  a  clear  6  per  cent,  on 
it  improvements.  The  City  has  only  paid  for  100  feet  of  the  2,100  feet  of  the  bulkhead  which  it 
unlawfully  seized  and  appropriated  to  its  own  use,  but  its  draws  the  revenue  from  it  punctually. 


15 


RECAPITULATION. 

Total  estimated  value  of  property  and  cost  of  improvements  betw^een  the  Battery 

and  West  Eleventh  street,  North  river,  say  $i7.S35>ocx)  oo 

Deduct  improvements  already  made  and  cost  of  property  betvv^een  Canal  street  and 

West  Eleventh  street,  3,318  feet,  as  estimated,  say   4,143,000  00 

Amount  required  to  complete  improvements,  covering  the  value  of  the  City  prop- 
erty and  purchasing  private  property  between  the  Battery  and  Canal  street,  as 
show^n  $13,392,000  00 

If,  then,  additional  improvements  are  made,  it  is  reasonable  to  be  supposed  that  the 
investment  will  readily  return  the  same  revenue  of  10  per  cent,  per  annum,  or 

say  a  net  income  of   $1,339,200  00 

For  which  the  City  will  issue  3^  or  4  per  cent,  bonds,  or  say  at  4  per  cent.,  the 

interest  on  which  would  be   535 >  680  00 

A  net  profit  in  revenue  for  this  district  of   $856,000  00 

To  which  add  the  district  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets  already  com- 
pleted  400,000  00 

You  will  have  a  total  net  Vevenue  per  annum  on  value  of  property  and  cost  of 

improvements  of  over   $1,250,00000 

EAST  RIVER. 

From  Whitehall  street  to  Brooklyn  Bridge   6,411  feet. 

Approximately  City  property   3>753  feet. 

Approximately  private  property   2,658  " 

  6,411 


Cost  of  widening  South  street  130  feet  to  make  the  street  200  feet  wide,  building 
bulkheads  of  granite  masonry,  filling-in  and  paving  same,  say  6,411  feet,  at 

$300  per  lineal  foot  is   $1,923,300  00 

Building  twenty-four  piers,  averaging  $50,000  per  pier  each   1,200,000  00 

To  reimburse  private  owners  for  2,658  lineal  feet  of  bulkheads,  including  piers  at, 

say,  $1,000  per  foot   2,658,000  00 

Total  for  improvement  on  East  river,  between  Brooklyn  Bridge  and 

Wlutehall  street   $5,781,30000 

With  the  bulkheads  these  piers  will  readily  rent  for  $25,000  each,  besides  the  ferries;  adding 
these  together  will  bring  an  income  to  the  City  of  over  10^  per  cent,  on  the  cost  or  value  of  the 
property  and  improvements. 

These  high  rentals  are  exorbitant  and  with  other  causes  have  tended  to  drive  commerce  from 
New  York — $30,000,000  in  value  has  already  gone  to  Hoboken,  Jersey  City,  Communipaw, 
Gowanus  Bay  and  to  Brooklyn.  Now  Staten  Island  and  Greenville  are  looming  up  as  competitors, 
and  want  as  much  more. 

It  is  a  serious  question  whether  or  not  we  should  use  1,000,000  cart-loads  of  ashes  per  annum  to 
fill  the  widenings  of  West  and  South  streets,  or  dump  it  into  the  bay  or  off  the  mouth  of  the  harbor. 

The  Law  Department  insists  that  the  Dock  Department  shall  refuse  permission  for  the 
improvement  of  private  property  which  the  City  wants  to  purchase.  What  must  the  private  prop- 
erty-holder do,  if  he  cannot  improve  his  holdings  ?  What  must  shippers  do  for  want  of  dock 
facilities  ? 

The  trade  and  commerce  of  the  whole  country,  as  well  as  that  of  the  City  of  New  York,  has 
been  made  to  suffer  from  this  peculiar  policy. 


i6 


The  policy  heretofore  pursued  has  prevented  the  acquisition  of  all  but  about  six  hundred  feet 
of  private  property  in  the  fourteen  years  since  the  organization  of  the  Department  of  Docks. 

Private  individuals  are,  and  have  been,  willing  to  improve  property  or  to  sell  their  holdings  on 
the  water-front  at  reasonable  prices.  I  have  shown  that  ten  years  have  been  spent  in  litigations 
and  the  City  has  only  acquired  about  six  hundred  feet  of  private  bulkheads  between  the  Battery 
and  West  Eleventh  street,  out  of  ownerships  of  over  six  thousand  two  hundred  feet,  and  has  accom- 
plished nothing  on  the  East  river,  notwithstanding  several  attempts  haVe  been  made  to  come  to  an 
amicable  understanding  and  agreement.  As  I  have  said,  the  private  owners  are  willing  to  "  sell  all 
the  bulkheads,  wharves  and  pier  rights,  not  already  owned  by  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New 
York,"  for  a  specific  sum  or  price  of  which  the  Dock  Department  is  to  be  the  judge  of  its  adequacy, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund. 

The  Dock  Department  has  been  completely  paralyzed  for  want  of  funds  to  go  on  with  the  per- 
manent improvement  of  the  water-front. 

Permit  me  to  suggest  that  after  the  purchase  of  private  bulkheads  or  pier  property  on  North  or 
East  river,  in  contemplation  of  the  permanent  improvements,  the  first  money  expended  should  be  in 
building  fifteen  or  twenty  piers  on  the  new  plan,  with  cheap  tempor9,ry  approaches,  and  later  to  build 
the  permanent  bulkhead  of  granite  masonry — as  has  already  been  done  in  several  instances. 
This  course  would  incommode  the  pier  lessees  in  the  least  possible  manner  and  keep  most 
of  the  water-front  in  use  while  the  work  was  going  on.  Then,  at  the  same  time,  the 
existing  marginal  structures  between  the  piers  can  be  widened  by  temporary  platforms,  to 
remain  until  the  permanent  wall  is  built,  and  the  area  behind  is  filled  in  with  coal  ashes — the  debris 
of  old  buildings,  and  cellar  dirt,  now  dumped  into  the  bay  or  off  the  mouth  of  the  harbor  of  New 
York.  Over  10,000,000  cubic  yards  of  such  valuable  material  has  already  been  taken  seaward 
since  the  Dock  Department  commenced  its  improvement  of  the  water-front.  Had  the  private 
property  specified  been  purchased  instead  of  some  of  it  seized,  this  amount  would  have  been  suf- 
ficient to  have  filled  in  behind  the  bulkheads  of  the  widened  streets  from  the  Brooklyn  Bridge  clear 
around  to  West  Eleventh  street.  These  marginal  platforms  of  very  efficient  construction,  it  is  esti- 
mated, will  not  cost  more  than  fifty  cents  per  square  foot,  or,  say  $90  per  running  foot  front,  and 
the  bulkheads,  when  thus  temporarily  built,  will  readily  lease  for  $20  per  running  foot,  or  at  over 
tw^enty  per  cent,  per  annum,  for  four  or  five  years,  on  their  cost,  while  the  granite  bulkhead  is 
gradually  being  built.  I  may  say  here  too,  that  contractors  who  have  the  debris  of  old  buildings 
and  cellar  dirt  to  remove  would  gladly  pay  the  Dock  Department  twenty-five  cents  per  cart-load  for 
permission  to  dump  their  materials  in  as  filling,  instead  of  sending  it  seaward  by  scows  at  a  much 
greater  cost  and  loss  to  the  City. 

It  is  estimated  that  500,000  cart-loads  per  annum  are  wasted  and  the  City  loses  even  this  income 
of  $125,000,  but  the  harbor  is  also  damaged  by  having  it  taken  seaward. 

I  find  upon  inquiry  that  several  old  piers  belonging  to  the  City  are  leased  at  an  annual  rental  of 
$15,000  under  stipulations,  that  when  the  City  chooses  to  rebuild  them,  say  at  a  cost  of  $50,000  to 
$55,000  each,  the  lessees  will  have  to  shed  the  same  at  their  own  cost,  and  will  have  to  pay  $30,000 
per  annum  rent,  or  in  other  words,  will  have  to  pay  the  City  $15,000  additional  rent  per  annum  on 
an  expenditure  of  say  $55,000,  a  profit  of  over  twenty-six  per  cent,  on  the  investment  for  rebuilding 
the  piers,  and  the  same  parties  will  also  pay  $20  per  running  foot  for  a  lease  of  the  bulkhead 
between  the  piers,  or  say  twenty  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  cost  of  the  temporary  bulkheads. 

As  a  financial  investment  for  the  City,  where  could  there  be  a  safer  one  ?  How  could  commerce 
be  so  improved  or  New  York  so  benefited  as  by  thus  improving  and  making  the  water-front  the 
most  copimodious  and  the  harbor  the  most  inviting  in  this  hemisphere  ? 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  gentlemen, 

.  Your  obedient  servant, 

SIMON  STEVENS. 

The  Comptroller  submitted  the  following  report  in  relation  to  issuing  Dock  Bonds  for  the  uses 
and  purposes  of  the  Department  of  Docks,  viz.  : 


17 


City  of  New  York — F'inaNCe  Department,  \ 
Comptroller's  Office,  v 
September  17th,  18S6.  ) 

To  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  : 

Gentlemen — On  the  27th  of  July,  last,  a  preamble  and  resolution,  adopted  by  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Docks  on  July  15th,  relative  to  the  issue  of  Dock  Bonds  tor  two  million  dollars,  authorized 
by  a  resolution  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  adopted  on  the  9th,  day  of  July,  1885, 
was  referred  to  the  Comptroller,  together  with  a  communication  from  the  Commissioners  of  Docks, 
containing  estnnates  of  the  amount  required  for  the  purchase  of  bulkheads  and  piers  from  private 
owners,  and  the  cost  of  the  improvement  of  the  water-front  within  certain  limits,  according  to  the 
plans  of  1871,  amounting  to  $5,219,000. 

The  issue  of  the  Dock  Bonds  authorized  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  on  July 
9th,  1885,  was  prevented  by  an  i-^junction  order  granted  by  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  at  the  suit 
of  the  Bank  for  Savings  in  the  City  of  New  York  against  The  Mayor,  etc.,  restraining  the  Comp- 
troller and  Mayor  of  said  city  from  issuing  said  bonds.  This  action  v/as  carried  to  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  and  the  injunction  order  was  reversed  by  a  decision  made  April  30ih,  1886. 

Under  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  Dock  Bonds  may  now  hi  issued  without  violation 
of  the  provision  of  the  State  Constitution  as  amended  in  1884,  which  restricted  the  issue  of  stocks 
and  bonds  of  the  city. 

I  submit  a  resolution  ratifying  the  resolution  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  adopted 
July  9ih,  1885,  authorizing  the  issue  of  said  bonds  for  the  sum  of  two  million  dollars,  and  directing 
the  issue  thereof  to  be  made  according  to  the  resolution  of  the  Commissioners  of  Docks. 

Respectfully, 

EDWARD  V.  LOEW,  Comptroller. 

Whereas,  The  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  on  July  9th,  1885,  adopted  a  resolution  to 
authorize  the  issue  of  Dock  Bonds  to  the  amount  of  two  million  dollars  ($2,000,000),  as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  That  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  subdivision  11  of  section  6  of  chapter  574  of  the 
"  Liws  of  1871,  re-enacted  by  section  143  of  the  New  York  City  Consolidation  Act  of  18S2,  the 
"  Comptroller  be  and  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  prepare  and  issue  from  time  to  time,  to 
"  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Department  of  Docks,  '  Dock  Bonds  of  the  City  of  New  York,'  bear- 
"  ing  interest  not  exceeding  three  and  one-half  per  cent,  per  annum,  to  the  amount  of  two  million 
dollars  (S2,ooo,ooo),  to  raise  the  moneys  required  for  the  uses  and  purposes  of  that  Department, 
"  under  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Department  of  Docks  at  a  meeting  held 
"  by  themjune  25th,  1885." 

And  Whereas,  The  Comptroller  was  restrained  and  enjoined  from  issuing  said  bonds  by  an 
injunction  order  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  ;  and 

Whereas,  Said  injunction  order  has  been  reversed  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  the  Commis 
sioners  of  Docks  have  applied  by  a  resolution  adopted  by  them  on  July  15th  for  the  issue  of  said 
bonds  for  the  improvement  of  the  water-front  of  the  city  ;  and 

Whereas,  The  Commissioners  of  Docks  adopted  a  resolution  on  July  15th,  1886.  requesting  the 
execution  of  said  resolution  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  adopted  July  9th,  1885, 
authorizing  the  issue  of  Dock  Bonds  as  above  recited  ;  therefore 

Resolved,  That  said  resolution  adopted  on  July  9lh,  1885,  author  zing  the  issue  of  Dock  Bonds 
to  the  amount  of  two  million  dollars  ($2,000,000),  be  and  is  hereby  confirmed  and  ratified,  and  the 
Comptroller  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  issue  said  bonds  as  therein  provided. 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  it  was  moved  that  the  resolution  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Henry  N,  Beers,  representing  "the  Counsel  of  Municipal  Reform,"  requested  to  be  lieard 
and  proceeded  at  some  length  to  address  the  Commissioners  on  the  subject  under  consideration. 

On  motion  of  the  Chamberlain,  seconded  by  the  Recorder,  the  previous  question  was  ordered  ; 
and,  on  motion,  the  resolution  submitted  with  the  report  was  unanimously  adopted,  all  the  Com- 
missioners present  voting  in  the  affirmative. 


